President Trump has long advocated protectionism, and is now putting his views into action in cases like solar panels and washing machines. Unfortunately, protectionism is just our government warring on some Americans to benefit others.

Perhaps protectionism sounds attractive because its root is “protect.”

We all want to protect ourselves and what is ours by preventing others’ invasions of our “unalienable rights.” Since John Locke, that protection has been recognized as the primary task of any government that advances its citizens’ well-being. That is why a central federal role is national defense, to protect against foreign invasions. Similarly, police, courts and jails primarily to protect citizens from neighbors’ invasions.

However, while they use similar sounding vocabulary, protectionism is very different from the protections we all want. We all want ourselves, our property and our rights protected. National defense is to protect all of us. Police are to “protect and serve” all equally under the law.

Protectionism cannot protect all. It provides special treatment for political favorites at the expense of others’ rights and well-being. In fact, it harms all American consumers not given special protection, by removing options they chose for themselves. The harm to citizen-preferred foreign suppliers is also important, and not just to foreigners. Their reduced earnings from sales to us will harm other American producers and workers by reducing overseas demand for their products.

This confusion is compounded by our use of the word “you” in English. Since we moved on from thou (singular) and ye (plural), you can be either singular or plural. One could say “this will protect you (singular),” and it could mean “it will protect the individual I am referring to, and harm others,” or it could mean “this will protect the individual I am referring to, without harming others.” The first is protectionism; the second is protection, but current usage is not clear.

That confusion might be partially addressed by using y’all for the plural form of you. But it would still leave an ambiguity. One could say, “this will protect y’all” and it could mean “it will protect the entire group I am referring to, and harm others,” or it can mean “it will protect the entire group I am referring to, without harming others.” Again, the first is protectionism; the second is protection, but current usage is not clear.

That brings us back to all. If you cannot replace you with all in the sentences above, you are talking about protectionism. It goes beyond protection of our common rights, necessarily harming some. It cannot benefit all. It restricts choices and competition, crowding out mutually beneficial arrangements for all but the specially favored few. It means that most of us “win” less, not more, leaving unanswered the question of why some deserve government-coerced charity from the rest of us, avoiding the fact that what protectionists portray as giving one group justice necessarily commits injustice against other Americans.

Given that protectionism violates the central purpose of any government trying to benefit all its citizens —defending people’s rights against aggression (including that from government), which is the traditional meaning of justice — it replaces the justice of voluntary arrangements with the injustice imposed involuntary arrangements.

Protectionism is a negation of protection for all. Herbert Spencer thought it should be called aggressionism instead, to remind people that it is inconsistent with the natural rights Americans’ government was to defend. And aggressionism does describe what has become in many ways the essence of our government’s actions: violating some citizens’ rights — violating justice — to expand others’ claims beyond what is consistent with justice. And it can be simply recognized by asking whether “this will protect you better” can be replaced with “this will protect all better.” The number of “no” answers to that simple question would certainly be depressing, but it could lay the groundwork for deflating the massively overgrown role of our government in our lives.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of Economics at Pepperdine University, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a member of the Foundation for Economic Education Faculty Network and a member of the Heartland Institute’s Board of Policy Advisors. His books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013).